Re: Call for review of proposed IESG Statement on Examples

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at wonderhamster.org>]

> > > However, I am also quite concerned that we in the IETF are not
> > > receiving reports about any problems we are creating.
> >
> > If we are not receiving any reports, then any assertion that there is a
> > problem is a theoretical exercise.
>
>   A DISCUSS is not an _assertion_ that there is a problem: it is a call
> for deliberation.

With you so far, all the way down to ...

> > Such exercises can be useful, but they form a very poor basis for
> > blocking something that has a couple of decades of established practice.
>
>   Here's the heart of this discussion: because a DISCUSS is blocking,
> Dave asserts it must not be exercised without substantial research.

Out of the eleventy-seven flavors of DISCUSS, some ARE blocking. Others 
aren't intended to survive the first telechat ("process DISCUSS", or 
"discuss DISCUSS", and after sitting with the IESG for three years I don't 
know if these are the same or not). All wear the same nametag.

My understanding of Dave's point is that a DISCUSS must not be BLOCKING 
without substantial research. That's not quite the same thing.

Thanks,

Spencer 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf